‘To prosper soundly in business, you must satisfy not only your customers, but you must lay yourself out to satisfy also the men who make your product and the men who sell it.’

——

Harry Bassett

===================

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses. “

——

HV Adolt

====================

So.

I have probably had to think about, and talk about, the business concept of “customer centric” more in the past month or so than I have had to do in the past decade or so.

I have seen so many customer-centric presentations over the years that made my head hurt I am surprised my head hasn’t exploded yet.

Don’t ask me why but the oft-horridly interpreted and often mis-implemented concept is making a comeback.

Customer centric, simplistically, is the concept of creating a positive customer experience at every point of the pre sale, sale and post-sale.

It’s a word we’ve been using for decades <dates back to direct marketing in the 1960s & largely credited to a marketing guy named Lester Wunderman> and most of us in business don’t really think too much about it because we think it is kind of an obvious ‘given’ in business.

The problem is that customer-centric has been mangled to a point where we actually have to figure out some wacky ways to define it <most people use it in the sense of putting the customer at the center of everything that is done>.

Frankly, I’ve never met a business person who said their company wasn’t customer-centric.

I imagine the topic keeps coming up because research with customers keeps telling these business people convinced they are customer centric that … well … they actually are not.

The most famous of the debunkers is Bain and Company who shared this enlightened graph back in 2005:

It showcases the delivery gap between how customers perceive customer service and/or customer experience and how executives perceive the performance of their organization in that context.

Suffice it to say … that gap, which can be scarily extreme, debunks the myth of customer centric in practice when a company simply looks in a mirror and says “wow I’m good looking.”

Here is where contrarian Bruce steps into this game.

Most business people sincerely want to make customers strategically important to how they go about their business, but they also know what they see from most “customer centric experts’ is bullshit.

Therefore, they do the best they can and know that … well … theory is difficult to pragmatically, effectively, implement.

Here is where I differ from most of the customer centric experts:

The most important letter in customer centric is “I.”

“I” as in “what I am good at” and “what I can actually do really frickin’ well” and as in “what is my Inner truth.”

Oops.

None of that is “what does my customer want.”

Look.

I never suggest ignoring the customer but I do suggest that before you ever sit down and talk about any customer centric things philosophically, and practically, you better be sure you know what you are good at, what you can actually do and what are the ‘truths’ <good & bad> of your own organization.

Most experts talk about “customer satisfaction” and I talk about thinking of the customer as someone with ongoing annoyance interspersed with occasional boredom and indifference.

Whew.

Now that sounds tough for any business person out there <and slightly depressing>.

But I tend to believe rather than try and build some rosy view most businesses should face … well … reality.

The reality is that once you establish customers SHOULD have high(er) expectations they are bound to go largely unmet.

Sorry.

That’s truth.

That is an unfortunate truth because the majority of customer centric practices choose to try and establish their own “best” to be judged by and … uh oh … they rarely actually keep up with the actual best of the best <because that “isn’t our positioning or what we are about” or because “oh, that is not our industry” or they simply just cannot match the best of the best>.

Setting high expectations means meeting the expectations of “customers” who will define everything by … well … EVERYTHING they encounter & experience.

A B2B customer will start thinking “experience” based on how the Starbucks barista treats them or how the Apple online assistance rep treats them.

Yup.

If you follow much of the customer centric bullshit being fed you, you will end up facing well informed customers who will be in a perpetual state of indifference and/or irritation.

Indifference will hit those customer centric practices that customers know are underperforming, and that they can avoid due to sufficient availability of the best of the best. If you’re working for one of those underperforming customer centric practices, the scary thing is not just selling less (or nothing). It’s that indifferent customers will stop being forgiving; they will stop being cooperative and giving you feedback on how to be more like other, better performing competitors. They’ll just leave and never return, without telling you why.

Perpetual irritation is just as bad: this will occur when customers are forced to buy from an underperforming customer centric practice, due to limited or no availability of what they already know is the best of the best.

In this light, pay special attention to fake loyalty and postponed purchases:

Fake loyalty: customers will continue to purchase from underperforming customer centric practices if the ‘real thing’ isn’t available. To the underperforming customer centric practices, all may seem quiet on the western front, until the best of the best suddenly does become available. Good examples of fake loyalty can be found in the airline industry: millions of frequent flyers around the world know that Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Emirates offer a superior experience, but since these airlines don’t fly on all routes, customers have no choice but to fly with subpar airlines now or then, or all of the time. Count on them to vote with their wallets every time new routes are added by these ‘best of the best’ carriers, even if they’ve never flown with them before.

Postponing purchases: some ‘best of the best’ customer centric practices like Apple actually manage to indirectly convince customers to postpone certain purchases. Many customers would rather wait for the iPhone or MacBook Air to become available, than to buy a new phone or laptop.

So … what should someone do?

The power of “I.”

….. Bruce’s consumer version of Inner Truth ………

Let me start with a Brucism — I have not found a lot of successful businesses that suck at everything.

In other words … if you have had some success, particularly if you have had some sustained success, it is likely you have <a> some significant expertise in something and <b> pleased some customers in some ways.

I am relentless on having businesses find their Inner Truth. It is often a difficult discussion <because it means admitting you are not good at everything> but by finding, isolating an embracing your business Inner Truth it permits the business to find its value core.

Once you find your value core you are able to insure you foster the attitudes & behaviors that feed into that value equation.

In addition, it insures the business leverages off of that foundation for any new ideas or “asks” of the organization itself with regard to new behaviors and decisions.

I have said this before and I assume I will say it a gazillion times again … “stop wishing you were something else and start loving who you are.”

That’s sounds like some bullshit Life coaching advice but the truth is more businesses, especially the ones who start discussing customer centric philosophy, should embrace this advice.

To be fair <before I begin my constructive enlightening rant> … the foundational aim for any customer centric practices has been and remains the same as always … to express singularities which consistently distinguish the offering of products and services.

And within these singularities … or distinctness … people will seek values, leadership, assurance, clarity … and personality <or character>. Maybe better said … some promise.

Growing a customer centric practices means it has to fulfill a clear promise. Promises are simple and complex. But suffice it to say, in this case, you make a promise and deliver upon it. Simple as that.

Here are some basic steps simplify <or at least clarify> some things that make up the foundation blocks for growing the customer centric practices based on “the power of I”:

company assessment

The first step in growing a customer centric practices is to assess the customer centric practices ‘parent’ <the organization itself>. There are several methods for obtaining this information from the end-users but suffice it to say that if you don’t know your company <culture, belief system, aspirations> you will never rear your customer centric practices properly. Never has the quote “be true to thineself’ ever rung more true.

research

Whether you think you need it or not … do some ongoing research.

Research will not only provide qualitative information from key stakeholders, including internal and external customers and influencers, but also flesh out the raw concept that resides in the vision.

The number of interviews will vary according to the typical number of end-users that would have an opinion about your company’s image as well as those ‘inside’ who have an image of what you do well.

The total number of potential end-users may be very small in b2b compared to a consumer product such as toothpaste but suffice it to say you seek to find the gaps & non-gaps of expertise between the organization and end users.

You are seeking some consistent feedback … so you hear the same feedback over and over.

The information collected from the survey is the foundation on which your customer centric practices platform will be established. You may find that once all the results are summarized, the information is very much in-sync with your organization’s internal perception of itself.

<note: don’t fool yourself into believing the exercise was a waste of time or a worthwhile effort in this situation … it is not only a sanity check but it also alleviates a lot of second guessing at a later date and plays a significant role in aligning everyone on what matters>.

Anyway.

In my experience … 90% of most customer centric discussions that businesses are faced with will begin with the customer.

That is the wrong place to begin.

Everything begins, and ends, with who you are and what your expertise is and what you can actually deliver. Beyond that … well … customer centric is worthless if you don’t get that right and accept, and embrace, that.

Which leads me to the next thing most customer centric experts never tell you <and I am fairly sure most of them don’t think about>.

Accepting Unevenness.

Unevenness?

What do I mean?

Well.

It seems like almost every customer centric discussion seems to incorporate some circle, or some 360degree view, in which you envelop a customer with all the love <functional and emotional> they need to create the utmost satisfaction and undying loyalty.

Unfortunately that is just theoretical bullshit because reality is just not that neat.

Just as there is no such thing as a well-rounded person there is no well-rounded business in the reality of … well … the real business world.

Most customer centric bullshit suggests you need to not only protect yourself on all fronts but also ‘project yourself’ on all fronts.

This is crazy.

Businesses don’t build themselves that way. Shit. People don’t build themselves that way. You are good at some things and not a good on others.

That said … the underlying absurdity in most customer centric modeling is in its suggestion of ‘evenness.’

The traditional customer centric circle diagram concept suggests you push everyone out toward what they don’t know <boundary of ignorance>.

However.

Enlightenment, and gaining knowledge to overcome ignorance, is just not that neat.

In fact … it is frustratingly un-neat.

Frustrating in that every time you learn something … ignorance still remains … outside your existing knowledge base. And this translates into a state of being perpetually dissatisfied <or the glass is never completely full with knowledge> which obviously can be either encouraging, or discouraging, with a person’s attitude to continue learning.

Businesses consistently attempt to fulfill their role in this ‘customer centric process’ by focusing attention on the inside of the circle and keeping everyone carefully inside the boundaries. They do this under the guise of “company consistency.”

I imagine the good news is that this helps keep employees from falling off the edge into irrelevant material & learning <and it insures all employees gain knowledge in a logical order> but it also, negatively, impedes upon <a> the way most individuals gain knowledge (which is they follow what interests them) & <b> any knowledge or learning that could be attained outside the sphere of consistency.

But here is the really bad news.

Organizations are not neat round circles of knowledge. Why? Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, organizations are made up of people, not concepts or robots.

The reality of any organization is one of a profile of an expert <or passion on a topic> in some particular domain, and not others, and therefore you will never end up with a perfect circle but rather an ellipse or some wacky trapezoid <or something>, in other words, the circle of knowledge & expertise of any business has inconsistent edges/boundaries.

What this means is that organizations are more like uneven spikey boundaries of expertise & knowledge organisms.

Thinking about your organization with regard to attempting to implement some customer centric concepts will help a business better understand their learning flaws, and learning challenges, but maybe more importantly … better understand their areas of expertise.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your customer centric practices … well … unevenly.

=================

“In short, not only are things not what they seem, they are not even what they are called!”

The more successful path to being the best you can be is … well … be the best you can be on the things you know you can actually be the best you can be day after day after day.

This builds value and believability.

Unfortunately most customer-centric gurus start this discussion in the wrong place.

They almost always begin by identifying “weaknesses” or “where we need to improve/be better”. In other words … they begin with what is not an inherent expertise, or something the employees apparently don’t particularly want to do, and make a decision to invest energy attempting to make the organization … well … something they are not naturally.

Unfortunately most customer-centric gurus start this discussion in the wrong place.

Customer centric discussions far too often focuses solely on those pesky demanding customers <remember indifference, irritation and unrealistic expectations>. In other words. You are likely to be chasing perpetually dissatisfied, or indifferent until they are dissatisfied, people.

That is crazy. Absurd.

The better way to be the best customer centric organization is actually to identify what the company does best, that increases customer satisfaction, and say “how can we make our best better” <so we can ‘own’ that expertise>.

Some people may read this as “settling.” Or if they want to be harsher suggest that I am stating something ‘lesser than’ a best customer service focused organization.

I would tell these ‘some people’ I am a pragmatist and have a tendency to focus on the truths of reality.

What do I mean?

Let’s face it.

In the past a company <or their customer centric practices> could get away with not performing at its peak on some things. Or maybe taking a day off performance wise.

You could because customers didn’t experience full transparency of the best, the cheapest, the first, the most original or the most relevant.

Well.

That’s all over.

And things are bound to get even more radically transparent. I wrote about this years ago and called it “the expectation economy.” http://brucemctague.com/expectations-as-an-economy Reality dictates you focus on the few things you can master and be an expertise on, offer expectations on those, don’t overpromise on others <even if competitors do> and be ‘customer centric’ by being authentically honest where you are consistently okay and authentically set expectations where you can deliver upon a ‘customer centric promise’ day in and day out.

Reality dictate your customer centric philosophy comes to life in an uneven pattern which actually can stand under the scrutiny of spotlight criticism.

In the end.

Let me go back to the most important letter in customer centric is “I.”

In this case it is “ideas.”

Ideas are the new currency in business, any business, including the service business. If you have a business focused solely on “making the customer happy” you are on a fool’s errand. In today’s interconnected world expectations <and what makes a customer happy> are driven not by your competition nor any realistically relevant industry benchmark … but rather by whatever that customer has uncovered anywhere in the world to establish a benchmark.

If you and your business try to ‘follow the customer expectation’ one-by-one … well … one will quickly become a ‘none’ <as in out of business>.

Regardless.

Suffice it to say if you are not in the business of generating new ideas to refresh your ‘customer centricity’ you are not competing in the same world as the rest of the businesses out there.

I end today’s thought on customer centric with that last one sentence paragraph because inherent in almost any customer centric discussion is NOT any discussion on ideas but rather “satisfaction.”

Satisfaction, at its core as a concept, is about “reaction.” In other words, if I am seeking to increase customer satisfaction I therefore seek ways to understand how I can do it <from them> and … well … do it.

Ideas are proactive.

And maybe that is the most important word, and thought, in this entire diatribe – proactive. 90% of the customer centric presentations I have ever seen have dripped with ‘reactiveness’ … reacting to what customers want in order to make them happy & satisfied <assuming your ultimate value is driven somehow by effective reactiveness>.

This makes my head explode.

Reactive value is the lowest value you can achieve.

Conversely.

Proactive value offers you the highest value you can achieve.

I will not argue that an effective customer centric organization has to have some good reactive mechanisms in place to show responsiveness to needs but I will argue with any customer centric expert who stops there. True customer centric business is beating the customer to the spot – with ideas, solutions and service.

That is a proactive model. And that is what maximizes value to a customer, breeds real loyalty and … well … insures the business itself constantly pushes out on its own boundaries of ignorance by increasing its circle off knowledge.

Anyway.

What I do know … or am 90% sure … is that you will not hear or read any of this from the traditional customer centric ‘experts.’ That either makes me a moron or … well … a contrarian.

“In general, people are not drawn to perfection in others. People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Hiding one’s humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting.”

—

Robert Glover

==================

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

—–

Saul D. Alinsky

===================

So.

I was fishing around for some new ways to talk about leading a business <I get bored with using the same words and thoughts over and over again> and I came across the Saul Alinsky quote … the second one I used upfront.

It resonated with me because I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in some company “forward thinking strategy” meeting discussing how we would expand the business … stretching not only beyond the existing functional strength of the business but also stepping beyond the existing expertise of the employees.

This is usually cloaked in the infamous “oh, if we can do this, we can certainly do this” statement … or the even more dangerous “we have always figured it out” mantra.

To be clear … progress is always tricky. And leading progress almost even trickier.

But, if you want it to be less trickier, ‘feeling secure’ is almost always a great step toward increasing the odds of success.

Now.

You can secure the … well … security … in a number of ways – some reality based and some emotionally charged ways.

And that is where Saul Alinsky comes back into the leadership discussion. He wrote a book calledRules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971. He wrote it as a guide to community organization <uniting “Have-Nots”, in order for them to gain social, political, legal, and economic power>.

What I loved about the Rules, beyond the rules themselves, was that Alinsky believed, when organized and directed well, the community can determine & achieve its purpose & goal. That thought, to me, is exactly the attitude a leader attempts to create <supporting a vision offered by the leader> within an organization.

What I loved about the Rules is the rules themselves are actually signposts for how to have a company compete in the marketplace.

That said.

Let me share the rules and some brief thoughts with the rules. The Rules:

—

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Far too often … despite the fact 99% of businesses unequivocally state “our difference is our people” … a business forgets to actually build their power off of flesh & blood.

Money comes and goes.

Machines and infrastructure does what it does.

But people, flesh & blood, is the true power. It pays, as a leader, to never forget that.

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Every business I have been involved with has had an expertise. Uhm. The difficulty is that far too many leaders & managers wish the organization had a different expertise or they aspire to some other expertise.

I, personally, love the thought of isolating a company expertise, consolidating the inside expertise and using it like a battering ram in terms of progress.

People love doing things well and being appreciated for the expertise they have <and not diminished by suggesting they should have another expertise>.

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

When I saw this one I almost chuckled. It is so good, so solidly strategically right … and I would guess 95% of businesses never think this way. Oh. They may be happy identifying a “this is what we are better at than they are” and competing with that in their hip pocket … but I struggle to think of any business I have ever been involved with who has sat down and said “let’s go outside their expertise <and consciously accepting they have an expertise.”

Crushing a competitor is always fun but ignoring an opportunity to outflank them is stupid.

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Ok.

Here is why I loved this one.

I loved it because bullshit & hollow rhetoric and promises/claims are strewn throughout the business world. I can guarantee, with 95% certainty, I could pick up any business’s vision & strategy & ‘rules of the road’ binder and find a significant amount of hollow shit. What would happen if I consciously attacked one of my competitor’s hollow shit? Make them live up to their own book of rules?

I am chuckling.

You would crush them.

You would crush them in two ways:

External perceptions: everyone knows almost all businesses make hollow promises but get aggravated when it becomes too obvious that the promise really is hollow

Internal perceptions: almost every employee simply accepts that some of the company rhetoric is bullshit but they accept it because it doesn’t really affect them. But if the hollow rhetoric becomes obvious AND a pain in the ass … discontent grows. Bitching at the water cooler increases.

This is an awesome leadership thought.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

I admit. Ridiculing your competition is fraught with peril. However … having some swagger and vocalizing your swagger is … well … infuriating to some competition. It puts pressure on them.

Ridiculing, specifically, what a competitor believes is their most potent weapon will … well … infuriate them.

Pick your path wisely … but there is absolutely nothing wrong with swagger, infuriating your competition and putting some pressure on them.

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Far too often some strategic guru envisions some tactic that will be smashingly successful and then attempt to imbue some excitement within the people who will actually do it. I think the best strategic thinkers find tactics that people enjoy AND can be smashingly successful. Unfortunately this is harder than you would think. But nothing really good is easy.

“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Amen.

A lesson we forget every day <and should not>.

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Tactical adaptation is possibly one of the most underrated strategic decisions a business can make. While we talk a good game on this in today’s ‘digital world’ the truth is that most of us chase numbers more than we think about outflanking and expertise advantages. That is kind of the bane of the ‘big data’ world.

Numbers are good in judging things but, in the end, people & behavior are not numbers and no matter how good a tactic may appear in a number it can always be replaced.

“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

I am not an empty threat guy, however, ‘power is what the competition thinks you have.’ My point here is not to make shit up and offer empty threats but rather the more you can make a competitor think, and worry, about the wrongs things the better off you are.

Stoke their imagination.

Make them have high falutin’ meetings pondering “what if” scenarios.

I wouldn’t do this to replace any of the other rules … but in combination?

Whew. This is good stuff.

“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

Sometimes in today’s business world we treat tactics like spaghetti we throw against the wall and hope something sticks. I am not suggesting a business should invest gobs of energy developing operations to maintain constant pressure in INDIVIDUAL tactics but I am suggesting that strategic tactics tend to coalesce and operations can be developed to support them.

I imagine the real point here is hollow tactics may generate some numbers for you but they don’t really make any dent into the competition <which, inevitably, is the key to leading an industry>.

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

I love this thought because, let’s be honest, we have become a mamby pamby business world. What I mean by that is at the first glimpse of any significant negativity we tend to retreat or retrench. Pushing through a negative is not standard operating procedure in a business today.

Let me be clear on this one.

If you do Rule #5 well, you will infuriate your competition. An infuriated competitor reacts <usually with some desire to inflict some negative pain> — they will violently react. If you stay the course, maintain your expertise, well … you can push through and own a positive.

More businesses need to remember this.

“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

I call this “consolidating a win.”

I cannot tell you how many times <but far too many> I have seen a business “lose after winning.” It is maddening, depressing & demoralizing … and completely avoidable.

Far too many businesses chase the success assuming they will be able to take a breath and take advantage of the success in a relatively timely fashion.

This is where ideas die.

In the take-a-breath moment.

This happens for a bunch of well-intended reasons … the most likely one is everyone invests their energy on the attack and a successful attack rather than diverting any energy & time to “what do we do when we are successful” other than maybe a framework of ‘what will happen.’

Unfortunately … frameworks do not consolidate.

The solution to this is so obvious I scratch my head as to why more businesses do not do it. Businesses always have two basic levels … the outside structure and the inside structure. The outside is the face of the organization and most typically is the one that pushes through and creates the ‘wins.’ The inside operations gets shit done … I have always had an ‘inside operations team’ well briefed and ready to go and insert them into the breach as soon as the win has occurred and have the ‘fresh team’ consolidate.

I could write an entire ‘consolidation strategy’ piece but suffice it to say your business gains value in a number of dimensions by doing it this way.

The larger point with this Rule is ‘don’t lose a win by not having a plan for when you win.’

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Well. Let me share the thought that first hit me on this … “a brand is a promise delivered in the store everyday” <this was The Limited’s phrase>. The point is that a business doesn’t exist if it doesn’t deliver upon what it promises.

That said … this is an important rule. As in a REALLY important rule that I bet 99% of companies do not even think about let alone adhere to. Most businesses target another competitor’s users & customers and go about trying to steal them <persuade them to switch>.

Well.

What about instead we attacked the company, the support network … the “promise” as it were … and make the people who actually deliver the promise start doubting, or start feeling less than secure, or just “less good about their brand & promise”?

If we did this, we create a gap, isolate as it were, between what the customer thought they wanted and what they perceive they are getting or would get.

I love this rule.

I admit I had never thought about t this way before … but from here on out it is part of my leadership toolkit.

———

Okay.

Those are some good rules for business.

But you know what?

It all comes back to the first Rule and my first quote.

Flesh & blood is the real power in any business and … people are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Honestly … I don’t think most leaders ignore the fact the people in their organizations are important but I think we don’t elevate them to ‘flesh & blood is the power’ status.

And that is where the Rules come in.

Inherent to each rule, and the success therein, resides with … well … the flesh & blood. That is a pragmatic reminder for leading a business.

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do.

And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take amount or two to point out in some fairly loud messaging that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’ The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

===============

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool.

It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. that doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes.

But humble in his responsibility. He permitted the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility.

Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership, are found in the unspectacular:

The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.

The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear. It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.

As in war, chess requires one should preserve what one can, and sacrifice what one cannot.

Even to the sacrifice of the most valuable pieces to win the game.”

—-

Rachel Caine

=====================

“I’m sick of people telling me it’s just a “get over it” situation. Fuck you. You don’t know what it’s like in my head. “

—

The Newsroom

========================

“When all the world’s a lock, you don’t find a key, you become the key.”

—-

Rachel Caine

===========================

Ok.

This is about sacrifices and how we manage, or mismanage, the sacrifices we make.

Simplistically … I tend to believe we all know that if you have to give something meaningful up … you should make it count.

Now.

We make sacrifices all the time.

Shit.

Sometimes we don’t even want to make a sacrifice … but Life steps in and actually demands we make one <and we have to deal with it>.

Regardless.

The problem is that I would bet <and I am not a betting man> that we squander 90% of our sacrifices. And I suggest that 90% number knowing that this number just doesn’t include the small sacrifices … but also some of the larger “life-defining” sacrifices.

Yeah … the larger ones. The larger ones include the kind of sacrifice that can be a defining moment — kind of a crossroads in a way. Now. I purposefully used ‘defining’ because … well … let’s face it … many of us every day schmucks can often lack a certain sureness of our own identity and a sacrifice has a nasty habit of making us face that fact and think about doing something about it.

All of what I just suggested means most of the time we want to make the sacrifice count.

Now.

The next problem is with our sacrifice mismanagement.

Almost every one of us has made some personal life changing decision <which included a sacrifice> … and went in ‘whole hog’ … and failed.

Therefore, we take our sacrifice and then sometimes seek some clarity of self or sometimes seek some collective-type identity by joining some movement or group. We convert our personal sacrifice into some collective ‘spirit of shared visions & goals’ as a means to not only seek some positive affirmation to our sacrifice but also to … well … hedge our bets.

Huh?

We know we failed in personal pursuit but believe, if in a group, it will be harder to squander the sacrifice … to not let the sacrifice not count.

Look.

I am not going to comment, or criticize, how anyone pursues insuring their sacrifice counts because what matters is insuring that any sacrifice you make doesn’t get wasted.

What I will suggest is that we let far too many sacrifices lay wasted in our rear view mirrors. I would argue that a sacrifice is like starting the engine and putting everything into gear … but you gotta supply the gas and keep your foot on the gas pedal and your hands on the steering wheel.

If you doubt that we waste them … start by just thinking about all the ‘right things’ we associate with sacrifices.

Shit.

We even have sayings to express our desire to make it count once … well … deciding it SHOULD count:

… in for a penny, in for a pound.

… go big or go home.

… all or nothing.

We say all this shit all the time which means, in our heads, that the implication is to ‘go for it’ despite the potential time investment, potential energy & effort investment and potential costs investment.

Yes … great intentions.

But … we waste it.

Simplistically most of us will run a 100 yard dash in a 5 mile race.

And then we look at the 100 yards and say “whew, I gave it my all … I went big … I was all in.” And for a 100 yards you were. The problem is that the finish line, assuming there is a finish line at all, is … well … there is another … uhm … 8700 yards to go.

Yeah.

Another 87 100 yard dashes.

That’s why making sacrifices count is so hard.

Almost everyone will go for it for 100 yards having given a meaningful sacrifice.

And will feel like you gave it a good college try.

A smaller percentage maybe will do the 2000 yards in the race … just suck it up and go for 20 100 yard dashes.

And feel like you gave it a good college try.

And a much smaller, much smaller, percentage of people will do the full 88 100 yard dashes and finish the 5 miles and make the sacrifice really count.

Well.

I will say that sacrifices really do come down to you. As in the quote I used upfront … if you make a sacrifice you don’t look for a key … you become the key that unlocks “making it count.”

Lastly.

All that said about investing the energy … we actually fuck up the whole concept of sacrifice. We fuck it up by suggesting making it count relies solely on energy & focus. But many true sacrifices demand … well … real sacrifices. What I mean by that is there are situations where you have to decide that if you want to do something or get somewhere you have to be willing to make whatever sacrifice will get you there – any sacrifice.

This makes me remind everyone what I noted upfront … chess is a great metaphor.

Many times you sacrifice a rook, a knight … maybe even the queen, the most valuable piece, to win the game.

Uhm.

That is ‘going for it.’

That is ‘go big or go home.’

It’s not just running the entire 88 100 yard dashes but also sacrificing something else <sometimes, not always> to get to where it all really counts.

And maybe that is my point.

We sometimes are fairly flippant with regard to ‘sacrifice.’

And other times, when big sacrifices are forced upon us, we are not flippant with regard to our intentions to make it count .. but because we did not choose the sacrifice, it was thrust upon us, the internal engine isn’t focused on making it count as hard as if we had actually chosen to make the sacrifice.

This all means 90% of the time we do not really make sacrifices count.

“To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most difficult.”

–

Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

=====================

“But if these years have taught me anything it is this: you can never run away.

Not ever.

The only way out, is in.”

–

Junot Diaz

===================

Well.

Almost every business I have ever crossed paths with has claimed they were running hard. Shit. I have never met a business that said “well, we don’t believe in running hard … we are walkers.”

Trust me when I say most businesses do not really run hard.

I know that because once you have <a> seen and experienced a company that runs hard everything else will look slow and <b> we have all ‘run hard’ in selected moments in our business career but 99% of those companies also say “it is not sustainable” and 99% of the time run at a lower gear.

That said.

When a company is running hard there is a slightly odd dynamic that almost always occurs … wondering whether it is worth it.

Yeah.

When a company is running hard, working hard and doing hard things daily it can be easy to wonder whether it is worth it. Wonder if you are reaching objectives fast enough, doing the right things and whether you are actually getting closer to where you want to be.

I feel relatively confident most managers fuck up how they address the wondering.

This happens because we inherently want to show people they reached something … a goal, a milestone or some ‘finish destination’ when , in reality, progress is the value you should be showing them to show a causal relationship to the energy they are expending. They are running hard, you are asking the company to run hard … you want to show them a often as you can that they are actually making some progress.

We fuck it up because we just aren’t taught that it is okay to let them know … “well … we are lagging behind on some sales objectives, but this doesn’t mean someone is doing something wrong, or you aren’t working hard enough or that some competitor is doing some magical thing better than we are.”

We fuck it up because most of us do not know how to deliver that message well. most of us make it sound like we are chasing some unrealistic goal, or maybe we throw in some false sense of optimism or maybe we actually create some ‘midway milestone’ which actually encourages people to maybe invest a little less hard, a little less running and a lot more ‘maybe that is enough.’

When your people are running hard you don’t want to tell them that it is … well … going to be hard and that is why you are actually running hard.

But you have to tell them.

Well.

You have to if you want them to keep running hard.

Tell them: You are asking people to change – and change is hard.

Most businesses aren’t just selling shit <something> they are asking a potential buyer to change – change current product, supplier or behavior. While change really is hard … we get better at explaining how this change we are asking them to do … is easier than they may perceive every day. Sometimes we have to weave our way through objections and sometimes we have to hammer our way through objections … but everyone, every sales person, service person, management, support staff and anyone who interacts with current and potential customers are doing their part today and doing even better the day after.

And while asking someone to change is hard actually implementing the change is harder. I sometimes believe most businesses are in the change management business more than anything else.

You have to tell them you know that no one is better at explaining why that change is good and how that change can occur.

The truth is when you are running hard, and not running simply for running sake, people get better at this every day.

The truth is we are not where we want to be but getting there … and getting better at getting there.

Next.

Tell them: You are asking people to believe what you already know – and educating is hard.

Even if your company is good, really good, and even if your company is the best, the leader, every company does have competition. People just don’t believe you just because you are the best or the leader – and most of your people know that <no matter how frustrating it is>. In today’s skeptical world people just don’t say “oh, okay.” And, frankly, we don’t want someone to say “oh, okay” when one of our competitors makes a claim. We shouldn’t, and don’t, expect our customers and potential customers to simply believe everything we say. This means we need to educate and consistently address each question and request as if each answer is THE one which will make them a partner of our company.

The truth is we are not where we want to be but getting there … and getting better at getting there.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail.

If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Look.

Running hard is not the same as running fast. But businesses are impatient, in general, and absolutely over-the-top impatient if they feel like they are running hard.

This means you have to tell them some truth about themselves and the company.

I doubt you will ever get to where you want to be as fast as you would want. I imagine every leader in every industry is always perpetually dissatisfied in this way. I imagine every adventurer, every explorer and every innovator is always perpetually dissatisfied in this way. I imagine this is partially what makes an average company great – you understand that tomorrow’s company will be a little bit better than the company today.

Our sales will come. They will never come as fast as you want but our company doesn’t just work hard, you work smart and success is ours whether it arrives in small steps or great leaps.

Anyway.

I have away said this — part of what makes a company great is that feeling of dissatisfaction.

A great company wants to be more agile, move faster, and retain that perpetual feeling that they can always do more and be better.

A great company has a spirit that drives them and gives everyone the sense that tomorrow is another opportunity to be better than today.

A great company, typically, does run hard but, maybe most importantly, has a leader who can breathe constant oxygen into the runners in a way that is neither false nor insincere.

Not everyone who says they are running hard are really running hard but if you are in a company who is … I can almost guarantee the organization will explode without good leadership and will be an Olympian marathoner with good leadership.

“Her sentences were icebergs, with just the tip of her thought coming out of her mouth, and the rest kept up in her head.”

–

Gregory Galloway

====================

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

—–

Ralph Waldo Emerson

===============

Ok.

I can honestly say that I have few friends who I know the full thinking, everything they truly think, about a thought.

Very few.

This includes even my best friends.

Uhm.

I don’t think this is unusual.

More often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

Some words to open a thought.

A sentence or two which offer a preface to a bigger story.

The rest is kept up in their heads.

The ones we know the best may give us some cues, assuming we are paying attention enough, as to where to go next.

The ones we know the least may give us only the tip of the iceberg thinking we may not deserve the rest or maybe the rest is none of our business.

Not to mix metaphors <but I will> people are truly like books we peruse at a bookstore. We scan the covers, maybe read the back and sometimes even open it up and read the inside sleeve to get a sense of what is inside. 90% of the time that is what we end up knowing about the book.

<kind of the same as an iceberg … just inside instead>

Now.

In business this is a little different.

In business … assuming you ever want to get some decisions and get something done … far more often you are exposed to a full iceberg, with regard to a thought, because business demands it. About the only way you can ever get an idea from insight to real action is to figure out a way to lift the bottom of the iceberg up & out from the ocean of ignorance and into the conference room light. And even then the business world does everything it can to encourage you to only show “what is important” … as in … “just show me the tops of the icebergs … that is all I have time for” <the assumption being (1) that is all that really matters & (2) if you are good enough you will show the tip of the iceberg well enough we will get a sense of what is under the water>.

That last thought is kind of bullshit & why this iceberg metaphor is so appropriate. The majority of any idea and thought is found below water not above and 99% of the time what is above water gives very little indication of what is truly below the water.

Compounding this issue is … well … more often than not if you bring an iceberg into a meeting you will have to discuss the fact there are a bunch of other icebergs, also with tips people can see and bottoms one can only imagine, floating around the iceberg you are discussing.

The shallowest of people in the room will scan the tips floating around and assess that way. The more thoughtful want to know at least something about the parts they cannot obviously see. And the most thoughtful are interested in everything they cannot see … even if it takes a lot of time and it is less than simple.

All that said.

I could argue that in Life or in business what is important is the part most often not seen or heard.

I could argue that in Life or in business what we actually do is spend a shitload of time focused solely on the tips of icebergs.

I could argue that the latter point is the foolish consistency of the hobgoblin of foolish little minds.

To be clear … you cannot chase all icebergs. Attitudinally you would benefit by always being curious with regard to what you can’t see but behaviorally there is just not enough time to chase down everything beneath the surface if you ever want to get anything done. in other words … chasing icebergs is not easy.

Look.

I could conclude my thought today pounding away on the importance of using curiosity to avoid bad business decisions but I will not.

Instead I will use a personal thought to make a business point.

If you think about the moments you took a moment and stopped after hearing a sentence from a friend, the tip of an iceberg as it were, and followed up with some curiosity with regard the rest of the thought that you assume was kept in the mind … and how much you were rewarded in terms of enlightenment by doing so … well … I kind of think that makes my point. It is typically a rewarding effort in terms of your friendship and connection.

We can spend our lives skating along the icy surface of irrelevance focused on the tips of icebergs or we can decide to dive down and see the larger portions of thoughts, ideas and minds hidden from sight.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, charisma, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when & where appropriate.

Above is not dominance per se just that you maintain a dominant position from which you can most effectively & efficiently lead.

Now.

Here is what any good leader knows … you don’t have to be big to … well … be big.

Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition.

A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e. the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down from all those things.

However.

Not everyone is a good leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way … any good leader has some doubts on occasion … it keeps them grounded.

Regardless.

What that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>.

They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

Well.

Why I decided to write about this is … uhm … day in and day out Donald J Trump offers us in the business world reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership.

And the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to step down and still stay above.

Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority>.

A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in most cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority”> combines all aspects.

Therefore the person in the dominant position combines substance & style. And this is where insecurity steps in … because if a leader has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics.

They will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

But the one I thought about today was “stepping down.’

Let me explain.

I heard Donald J say the other day “they should call us to participate.” In other words … they need to come to me <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position.’

This was not a one-off comment.

He does this … every … frickin’ … day.

Trump never “goes to people” nor does he unite by inserting himself into any opposing groups <people who may not agree with him> opening himself up to say “let me be part of what you want.” I cannot envision him ever going to opposition and suggesting he wanted to work with them <they have to come to him>.

His whole leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ and he fears stepping down from his position because he fears it will expose the fact he isn’t really above anyone other than in title.

In other words … he fears looking small <or ‘not bigly’>.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they step down or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’ but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has.

Little people are little wherever they go … even if they just sit in the corner office.

Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this … and doesn’t know this.

What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <every should come to me attitude>.

They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance … “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear.

Loss of relevance.

Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a “you need to come to me, call me or ask me” mentality.

Foreign dignitaries come to visit him <and he does not visit them>.

Democrats should call me instead of being obstructionists.

People need to visit him at the White House <or Mar a Lago>.

He never works with people or offers to meet them.

He treats everyone as if they should be subservient to him and if they do not meet that desire he is dismissive or even attacks them as ‘obstructionist.’

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’ but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate … I just wanted to see if I could play.

I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look.

We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at … but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness.

Looking at Trump it is easy to see that he grew up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. He lived in a bubble in which young, mentally lazy, rich, amoral white men routinely got away with whatever they wanted. These same characteristics are exhibited in his insecure leadership style.

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders.

And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big … they can step down … sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t vote for you as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas … and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. Judge away. Every leader should be judged … and judged harshly … because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

“If people were employed at creating heaven on earth, everybody would be happy; instead each one is creating his own heaven by creating hell for others.”

―

Bangambiki Habyarimana

==================

“Self-interest makes some people blind, and others sharp-sighted.”

—

Francois de La Rochefoucauld

===============

Well.

As a business guy I most often view Life, government and politics, as well as business issues, thru a business lens.

It is fairly rare that I view business through a government prism.

And, yet, as I sat down to discuss self-interest and managing self-interest as a leader I found that using a governing prism was the most appropriate.

Self-interest sounds like it could be defined fairly simply because … well … it revolves around ‘self.’

Ah.

But ‘self’ depends on who is looking in the mirror as well as whatever ‘grouping of selfs’ you would like to gather up and discuss — in other words … self interest can vary depending on where you are standing.

That said … let’s discuss self-interest from a governing perceptive. Basically, self-interest can be captured in three concentric circles:

Self.

Country.

Global.

The business version could be self, group, company … or self, company, country … or … well … you get it.

Hmmmmmmm … ‘you get it.’ I do wonder if someone hasn’t worked in a larger company or even if they have but haven’t attained some management role if they ever ‘get it’ <completely at least>. Even being in management one can decide to keep their head down, under the guise of being focused n my responsibility, and just assume someone above in management is worrying about the larger picture and larger “interests” which will either benefit me or will not benefit me.

I learned this lesson early on in my management career – once I started managing a group. When I assumed the responsibility I assumed everyone would at some point do what I had done … changed companies and got new jobs. To be clear … I didn’t assume that everyone would actually do it I just assumed they would want to do it at some point. Therefore I viewed managing people and talking with people and leading the people through the full range of concentric interest circles. Simplistically, in my head, I said “I will train you and develop you so that you will be successful wherever you go from here.” my objective wasn’t just to make my group’s ‘self-interest’ a priority but rather insure that self, group, company and industry were all aligned so that the expertise and the ‘self’ could meet interests in all places at any time.

Yeah.

That created some challenges.

Yeah.

Sometimes it created some friction <because your group was always looking at other groups wondering why they did shit you didn’t do as well as it sometimes created a slightly different bar to meet than even the company itself may have demanded>.

But, yeah.

It always created the best version of each employee <and me I imagine>.

I say all that because no good leader will ever suggest it is all about one circle of self interest.

They know it is not only foolish but not true.

Meeting the need of each circle of interest is never trickle down or even trickle up … it is more often the three ‘circles of self’ in a line in which little balls are constantly weaving their way side-to-side … think maybe the eyes of the Cylons in BattleStar Galactica.

Meeting interests at all self-levels takes work. And most of us being managed or living in the everyday world are okay with that when it is explained.

But explaining it is important … and maybe HOW you explain it is even more important.

While people are mostly well-meaning <albeit in today’s world we would criticize the way Jesus put on his sandals in the morning> most of us truly do not care about the decision maker’s decision making process or even the decision maker’s fate and we certainly have no interest in putting ourselves into the decision maker’s shoes.

Yeah.

We naturally have self-interests and we weigh our own self-interests as we view the decision we will inevitably judge <prioritizing the other self interests as lower than our own but not mutually exclusive>.

You want a little of this without having to endure a little of that.

In other words … you want everything … you want to stand upon principles … you want the greater good to be served … uhm … without sacrificing anything. And, yet, we are more than willing to sacrifice some things for the greater good … economists call this “the benevolence of self-interest.”

It is too simplistic to look at people as mere ethically agnostic optimizing machines.

At the foundation of all economic theory, and behavioral theory, is the assumption that people are driven/grounded by the rational pursuit of self-interest. But, as everybody knows, people are not rational and they often act selflessly wherein things like honor, duty, love, etc. enter into the interest calculation.

When it comes to self interest, all circles that is, the evaluation does not solely reside in satisfaction of needs & wants but also in desires, purpose & welfare of others — and, yes, that includes global & country as well as individual.

I say all this because while self-interest is extraordinarily powerful it is not the end all.

And you know what?

Most of us know that in our heart of hearts.

So when a leader stands up and suggests it is all about you … and that ‘the other people’ who build initiatives and businesses which recognize the other circles of interest do not have your best interest in mind … while it sounds tasty … we know it will give us heartburn later.

Oddly enough I think of this type of false leadership as someone who is willing to put down the virtues of other people simply to bolster their own.

===============

“We’ve all started to put down the virtues of the other factions in the process of bolstering our own.

I don’t want to do that. I want to be brave, and selfless, and smart, and kind, and honest.”

–

Four <Divergent>

=============

And because I just pulled a quote from the Divergent series let me share some words in the Dauntless Manifesto:

=======

“We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.”

—-

Dauntless Manifesto <Divergent>

===========

Well.

There is a thought for any business leader to wrap their head around. No. There is a BIG thought.

In a me, me, me world <or at least it sometimes feels that way these days> … in a world where if I see something like ‘no one will stand up for you but yourself’ … or … ‘the only one you can count on is yourself’ one more time … I will … well … begin to lose a little faith in humanity … this thought is something we should all wrap our heads around. Especially someone whose responsibility it is to view the three concentric circles of interest and … well … lead people through them all.

A good leader need not be brave but they certainly must have some courage – courage to tell the truth & courage in convictions.

Therefore circles of interest may actually come down to ordinary acts of courage.

Courage as in stepping in front of criticism.

Courage as in stepping in front of ‘doing nothing.’

Courage as in stepping in and doing what is right <even if it may not be the easiest thing to do>.

Managing the circles of self-interest as a leader is an almost impossible task.

Pull one lever and another lever is released.

But I would argue, vehemently, that the leader who embraces the circles of interest in their interconnectedness inherently understands that separation is an illusion.

====

“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation.

Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same.

We are all one people. But we live as if divided.”

————

The Last Airbender

===

While as a leader you seek to identify with the individual as unique the underlying truth is that we are all one people who simply live as if divided. And that belief is at the core of how one manages against all three concentric interest circles as you work continuously to see that employees identify their personal success with the success of the organization and the industry itself.

Anyway.

Great businesses, and countries, are multifaceted and multidimensional. I would suggest inherent in that strength are natural divides between the facets and the dimensions … and natural connections between the facets and dimensions.

Business leaders know that. And they don’t fight it but rather simply figure out a way to get all the squirrels herded in the same direction.

From the outside people may only see squirrels running around aimlessly.

From the inside you see squirrels digging up sustenance and storing it up at the nest for the benefit of the future survival and prosperity.

And it all revolves around ‘circles of self interest.’

That is the challenge every leader faces in managing a business and a larger organization. And the multiple circles make it often extremely difficult to judge leadership <because we would prefer the simplicity of judging one circle not how they all coexist>.

As Montaigne said … “truly man is a marvelously volatile, various and wavering creature: it is difficult to base a stable and uniform judgement upon him.”

A good business leader juggles the circles of self interest and sometimes it is a little volatile and almost always wavering in some way. Yet, when well done and well-articulated, it is marvelous to see and offers marvelous benefits to all circles of interest <success in one begets success in another>.

What I can unequivocally state is that any so-called leader who focuses solely on one circle <your self-interest is most often the one> is not a leader … and should not be trusted.

I admit.

I have little, if no, patience for a leader who suggests he/she will make all decisions based on self-interest, or what is best for the ‘kitchen table in every home’, and by doing so success will “trickle up” to all other circles of interest.

I have no patience because it is not only a lie but is ignorant of how things work … well … if you want enduring success that is.

I have no patience because, in their lie, they are creating a vision of heaven for you which, in reality, is a hell for all.

‘In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream …’ It’s a ‘death trap,’ a ‘suicide rap.’

‘I want to guard your dreams and visions.’ ”

—

Bruce Springsteen – Born to Run

==============

“This man said that you can move to Greece, live in Greece, but you can’t become a Greek. You can move to Japan, live there, but you can’t become Japanese; or France and become a Frenchman; or German—or become a—all of these things.

But he said, everybody or anybody from any corner of the world can come to America and become an American.”

—————–

Ronald Reagan

=========

Ok.

I have a piece coming up on globalization but today it is about the American work ethos and American workers and, I imagine, a view on any version of isolationism <extreme to practical>.

I admit.

I find very little appealing in an isolationist concept <any aspect of it> … even the common rhetoric of the day.

Simplistically I feel like it suggests we, America, cannot compete globally. In my pea like brain I view it like sports … sports in which almost every home team retains an advantage … despite the same rules, same number of players, same dimensions of the court & field. Mainly it comes down to coaching, ability and , I imagine, pride of home field … uhm … but I still get on a bus and go play away games.

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said ”American workers don’t need to hide from anyone.”

Which reminds me of how much during American presidential campaign, and even now somewhat, I found it extremely aggravating how we had a bunch of people talking about American workers and American businesses.

They all seemed to forget that our ethos is “just do it.”

When set free to do the voodoo it does … American business is dynamic, energetic, innovative, can-do and actually gets out there and makes & sells shit.

We shouldn’t be impatient because the success is coming fast enough and in our impatience “change the rules” or “hide within our borders” but instead we should use our impatience to invite competition, sweat it out and beat the crap out of them.

My impatience? I sometimes get a bit impatient when I hear people moaning about the state of the world and the inevitable “the sky is falling” or “the world is unfair” <pick your poison>.

Given an opportunity every generation believes it is tougher for them and will create their own prognostications of doom & gloom and, yet, we are still here and still have the world’s largest economy <and best on a variety of measures>.

I am not suggesting there aren’t real business issues and I am not suggesting from a regulatory standpoint there are some tweaks to the system which would enable businesses to improve themselves to compete better <please notice I didn’t say “to constrict the competition” but rather to have us improve to compete>.

Isolation goes against every bone in our “just do it” American body & soul.

Nike trademarked it but the pilgrims brought it to America. From day one immigrants, with the help of Native Americans, went to work building America … stone by stone … seed by seed … idea by idea … sweat drop by sweat drop.

America First should never be America Alone.

America has never been an individual competition it has always been about a team competition.

America First should be earned on the playing field competing against the best of the best and winning <by the way … that defines ‘exceptionalism’>.

America should be about building a better engine, building a better race car and running a better race.

===============

”It’s time to gun the engines, not put on the brakes.”

——–

Ronald Reagan

==========

It is aggravating to hear “close the borders” combined with “the world is going to shit” … which all leads to ‘disengage from the world <competition>.’

Really?

REALLY?

What kind of shit response is that?

What kind of “winner” doesn’t want to compete and compete against the best?

It seems like we should be investing not in building advantages for ourselves but rather in building a better team. That is where money and energy should be spent.

Hire better coaches.

Offer better training programs.

Buy better equipment.

Study better strategies.

Create better plan of attacks.

I wasn’t a huge Ronald Reagan fan but he got it … he hated changing the rules of the business game <tariffs & regulations> and only did so situationally, tactically and for short term ‘balancing out’ … as he says … given a respite from predatory import practices, can become competitive in a world market.

But … he understood the importance of the attitude of the American worker above all else … check out these words he said to Harley Davidson:

… you gave some folks in Washington an important lesson about how we go about buying and selling with other nations. You see, we’ve shaken hands on an agreement with most of the other nations of the world, an agreement that sets the rules for international trade. We have problems, of course, with some of those nations—the ones that don’t let us sell to their people as freely as they sell to ours. But the agreement, called the GATT agreement—that’s the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — gives us ways of dealing with those problems, and it also gives us ways of giving industries the kind of breathing room we gave you.

And if they’re as serious as you were about shaping up—now we’re about to begin worldwide talks on how to make this agreement even stronger.

Because of the GATT agreement, when you were ready to sell more bikes around the world, no one stopped you.

But now there are some in Congress who say, in effect, that the United States should break its word with the other countries.

They say American workers need to run and hide from foreign competition, even if that means other countries will strike back by not letting you sell your bikes to their people. Well, Harley-Davidson has shown how wrong that is and what the truth is. American workers don’t need to hide from anyone. America does best when America sticks by its word. And American workers can take on the best in the world, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. No one is better than you are.

You may have heard that my temperature’s up about some trade legislation that’s before the Congress right now. On TV the other night, it was called one of the toughest trade bills of this century. I remember the last time we had a so-called tough trade bill. It was called Smoot-Hawley, and they said it would protect American jobs. Instead, after other nations were through retaliating, it helped us—or it helped give us, or at least deepened, the Great Depression of the 1930’s. I’m probably the only one here that’s old enough to remember that. I was looking for a job then. [Laughter] Twenty-five percent were unemployed, including me.

The Harley-Davidson example makes a very strong statement about how government, through the judicious application of our trade laws, can help the best and the brightest in American management and labor come together in ways that will create new jobs, new growth, and new prosperity. Government’s role, particularly on the trade front, should be one of creating the conditions where fair trade will flourish, and this is precisely what has been done here. Our trade laws should work to foster growth and trade, not shut it off. And that’s what’s at the heart of our fair trade policy: opening foreign markets, not closing ours. Where U.S. firms have suffered from temporary surges in foreign competition, we haven’t been shy about using our import laws to produce temporary relief. Now, there are those in Congress who say our trade policies haven’t worked, but you here at Harley-Davidson are living proof that our laws are working. The idea of going to mandatory retaliation and shutting down on Presidential discretion in enforcing our trade laws is moving toward a policy that invites, even encourages, trade wars. It’s time to work to expand the world market, not restrict it.

Today, as many as 10 million American jobs are tied to international trade, including many jobs right here at Harley. For more than a century, when America’s trade with the world has grown, America has created more jobs. When trade has declined, so have the number of jobs. So, when it comes to making new jobs, free and fair international trade is America’s big machine. It’s time to gun the engines, not put on the brakes. Your chairman, Vaughn Beals, summed it up when he said, and I will quote him: “We’re sending a very strong message to our competitors and to the international industrial community that U.S. workers, given a respite from predatory import practices, can become competitive in a world market.”

The best way to meet foreign competition is also the right way: by sticking to our agreements with other countries and not breaking our promises, by making sure other countries also stick to their agreements with us, and by being the best. As America prepares for the 21st century, you’ve shown us how to be the best. You’ve been leaders in new technology. You’ve stuck by the basic American values of hard work and fair play.

================

A danger we are currently meandering our way toward is one of attitude.

We currently have a president who doesn’t foster attitude and belief in self but rather believes success is found solely in removing disadvantages, real or not, and removing “unfairness” <even if the other team were simply playing the game better or had better players>.

He is wrong in his approach.

Business is often more about attitude and fortitude then it is about whether “the pitch was mowed at 1 inch instead of an inch & a ½.”

It is a false narrative, and a dangerous narrative, to suggest success is based on ‘fairness’. Why? Because … well … more often than not we will always find that the world was unfair in some form or fashion … and you know what?

You still gotta compete, you still gotta play the game and you still gotta figure out a way to win.

America is at its bestjust doing it … sweating it out on the streets seeking the runaway American dream.

America is at its best when it ignores all the reason why we cannot do something and just go do it anyway.

America is at its best when we have a leader standing up in front of us not making excuses, not whining about unfairness and all the reasons why we haven’t been successful … but one who is instead saying “here is what we are gonna do and lets go do it.”

It was Theodore Roosevelt, in 1904, who said:

“We, the people, can preserve our liberty and our greatness in time of peace only by ourselves exercising the virtues of honesty, of self-restraint, and of fair dealing between man and man.”

But he also reminded everyone of the importance of work ethic.

“They stood for the life of effort, not the life of ease.”

Freedom, Roosevelt warned, had to be earned by the exercise of restraint, and its bounty could only be harvested by diligent labor.

Anyway.

I am not an isolationist mostly because of all I have written today. I am a business guy and as a business guy I want to compete … and I believe I can compete well and win often enough if I put in the smart thinking and the diligent labor.

While I may proudly wrap myself in an American flag I also proudly wrap myself in an attitude … ”American workers don’t need to hide from anyone” … and I am an American worker.

We should never underestimate the American worker and American business ingenuity.

We shouldn’t hide from the world … we should be building the best team and sending them to the far corners of the world, wherever they may have an opportunity to compete, and win through hard work and fair play.

Isolation is the wrong path. It’s not American. We compete, work hard, play by the rules … and win more often than we lose.

American workers can take on the best in the world, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

Instead, focus on what to do next. Spend your energies on moving forward toward finding the answer.”

–

Denis Waitley

============

“You are always a student, never a master.

You have to keep moving forward. “

—

Conrad Hall

============

So.

This is about shifting gears professionally.

What made me think about this?

I recently watched a professional acquaintance who shifted gears.

Oh.

To be clear.

He shifted up.

He had a good business, good business model and a good business sense. In my eyes he was cruising along in maybe 2nd or 3rd gear <good … not bad … and not great> … and then … well … he found another gear.

To be clear.

When I first saw his business he was maybe in 2nd gear … not really rocking the boat or rocking the world but steady consistent and moving forward and solid business.

Looking from the outside in I never saw spectacular but I saw steady. I saw … well … 2nd gear.

He didn’t know it but, behind the scenes, I would never hesitate to recommend him, maybe not typically for those who needed to shake the etch a sketch, but 100% for those who just needed a good engine tune up. Over the years he steadily shifted up to maybe 3rd gear … always steady and solid <good, maybe very good, just not that extra little great>.

But then that changed.

One day I saw his business newsletter and … well … I sat up a little straighter and read it a little closer.

And read it again.

It felt like he had shifted gears.

It now felt like 5th gear stuff.

I got the next newsletter.

Definitely 5th gear.

He had shifted gears professionally.

I tend to believe this happens a lot as you get older.

We shift gears.

We reach a point professionally where you have it pretty good, you have some good experiences which have taught you a shitload of different things … and you sit back and scan it all <comparing it to what you have done>.

This is where the shift occurs.

Some decide to downshift.

Some decide to shift up.

Now.

To be clear.

There is a huge swath of people in the business world who simply go in to earn a paycheck, their only gear is the one that does their job <mostly well or well enough> and their career progresses in that one and only gear.

I would note, just for the record, day to day business relies on these essential people and their steady gear attitude <so stop giving them shit or look down on them in any way>.

This is not about them.

This is about the business people who want more. They want to use another gear then other employees … and for the most part throughout their career … they do.

Inevitably these people reach a point, maybe some success, maybe a title, maybe it is just some more good experience where they … well … decide to shift gears.

And, yes, this is where some shift down.

These ‘shift downers’ have decided they have been working hard and they see the other relatively happy one gear people and say “I am going to slow down.”

Some people call it selling out.

Younger people look at these older people as ‘wasted space.’

I just call them people who believe they deserve to down shift <so stop giving them shit or look down on them and look to maximize their experience>.

This is not about them.

This is more about the business people who wanted more … and then see that maybe they could actually “be more.”

These are the business people who shift up.

And you know what? Shifting gear seems like the appropriate metaphor here because ‘the analogy of ‘shifting gears’ is used to identify and explain the key factors (agents) involved in driving career formation, and describe the level of interconnectedness between these drivers.’

To shift up … in order to respond to the pressure … the gears have to be in sync, work simultaneously and coordinate the rest of the body around them.

And that is what happens. You have accumulated a lot of knowledge, expertise and experiences <practical functional stuff> and then you decide to incorporate some personal clarity to the horsepower.

It is almost like you find some clarity … in yourself professionally which permits you to better identify the largest and most influential parts in the gear box.

And then … you shift gears.

I feel qualified to write about this because I did it. I shifted gears up.

And I have seen others in my generation shift up … and down.

I will admit that it has taken me awhile to not have disdain for people who down shift … mostly because it is so far out of my DNA I, frankly, couldn’t understand it.

But I do now.

I certainly see the value of ‘down shifters’ and believe any organization would benefit from having a mix of good, qualified, experienced, downshifters.

As for shifting gears up?

Whew.

Seeing someone in my business generation do it is … well … a joy.

Mostly because, in general, the shift is tied to a decision that our generation may have not always been the best for the business world and possibly injected some flawed thinking with regard to business acumen & principles. This means that most ‘shifting up’ is tied to trying to address those ‘wrongs’ or at least try and inject some ‘righter thinking.’

I get some shit from people because I am hard on my entire business generation … everyone.

Look.

I think more of us should be.

To be clear.

I don’t expect everyone in my generation to decide to shift gears up but I would like more of my generation to at least understand some of the consequences of our behaviors & principles.

And for those who decide to shift gears upwards? I hope they get a chance to implement their new horsepower because today’s business world can make it pretty difficult for people in my generation, who truly have something to offer and are willing to not be attached to the old ways of doing things to actually get to do what they truly offer.